Guess the missing word
I'm guessing 'less'.
Facebook has defended plans to open up members' inboxes to application developers as a technology designed to spur for innovation in areas such as mobile messaging. The social networking site said security consultant concerns that development of the technology makes for an unacceptable privacy risk are misplaced. In particular, …
I'm guessing 'less'.
The amount of stupid applications that require me to install and grant permission so that it can see everything about me including who I've slept with and which testicle is bigger is getting ridiculous. I ain't gonna be granting any of those stupid applications access to my inbox any time soon (at all, in fact).
POP3 access is different to allowing a stupid application to scan my inbox to see who has a "crush" on me (whatever that is. Sounds painful).
The important difference, which the Facefook spokesdroid so blithely glossed over, is that I happily allow an application running on my desktop to access Gmail via POP3. They are talking about allowing an application running on the servers of an unknown (to me) third party to access the entirety of my inbox.
These are two such very different things that to compare them is entirely disingenuous.
"In particular, Facebook said its Mailbox API plans poses less of a privacy risk than Gmail, which scans email messages to serve targeted ads."
They have got to be kidding. Yes, Google analyses content, but that content isn't handed to the advertisers - all they get are stats.
If Facebook go through with this, the content of messages will be stored and processed on third-party systems, which could be anywhere on the planet, with no guarantee of security whatsoever (Shared hosting, anyone ? Compromised system ?)
I've seen so many badly-written Apps that interfere with rendering of pages, display errors or just appear to have been written by someone barely literate, it's just not funny any more - if their App looks like a refugee from ICanHasCheezburger, what's the betting that the code is equally horrible ?
There's even a Dummies book on the subject - look up ISBN 0470277955 if you don't believe me. Think how many people have gone on to write little quizzes after reading that book, with no idea about how to write reliable, secure code, or how to choose suitable hosting...
Er... so which is bigger?
Paris because she likes intrusion
even talking about using POP? Who uses POP anymore? Just support IMAP or Exchange push. Please!
Facebook ads are from... Dunno.
Third parties allowed to use the webmail passwords that Facebook encourages you to lend it to check your address boks for friends?
Meanwhile it seems to me that they are damn close to the edge of destroying their business anyway. The networking effect can spin down as well as up, if they allow some apps to be a serious menace, or just seriously annoying (as some are), then at some point the casual user (not just paranoiacs like me) will stop using any new apps. It is really difficult to repair trust once you've lost it.
Just say "no" to applications. Thanks to the Canadian government, Facebook has made it much easier to just block apps completely. Use the feature. Apps don't need to know SQUAT about the people using the app, other than maybe a unique identifier in the case of multi-player. If they want it, then they're up to no good.
People 'explicitly allow' and agree to things all the time. Every facebook app asks you to allow it to access various things, most people just say yes, in the same way everyone agrees to click-through license agreements.
You are right the apps all the time ask you to allow them to access "everything on your profile they need in order to work"... We are never told what that access is on that accept screen.
If that is our control, then its a poor control as every app, even the virus ridden ones ask that.
For a nano-second there, I was starting to see Facebook might've had a good idea there but you put it in a correct perspective there.
NOW that's an oxymoron